The Young Turks - Hot Labor Spring

Episode Date: June 8, 2023

A Cato Institute poll finds nearly a third of Gen Z favors the government installing surveillance cameras in homes. Teamster & UPS driver Sean Orr speaks out ahead of possible strike. Fueled by stock buybacks, pay of top insurance CEOs surged to $335 million last year. CNN announces Chris Licht's departure on air. HOST: Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. We're just going to blow your mind on the show today, that's what we're going to blow your mind on the show today. That's what we're going to do. That's what the show is about, blowing minds. Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm your host, Anna Casparian. And boy, do we have. a show for you. I'm super excited for the first hour and the second hour today, along with the bonus episode, which of course John Iderola will be joining me for. But in the first hour today, we're going to talk to someone from UPS about a very possible massive strike

among UPS workers this summer. What is the current conflict between UPS workers, the union, and the company itself. We're going to get to the details. I promise you, you will definitely appreciate that conversation and that interview, so stick around for that. We're also going to talk about a growing percentage of young Americans who are not only fine with government surveillance, but would even be okay with the government installing cameras in our homes. That blew me away. I can't wait to share that story with you. And later in the hour, we'll also talk about Chris Licht. Yes, he has decided to step down as CEO of CNN. Not going to spend too much time on it, but I do want to give you my take. And we'll also

We also discuss corporate CEOs in the healthcare industry and just how they were able to milk U.S. taxpayers to essentially provide more funds for corporate stock buybacks to become even more wealthy than they already were. Don't miss that story either. But before we get to all of that, just want to encourage you to like and share the stream. If you're watching us live, you can also help support the show by becoming a member by going to t.t.com slash join. Or if you're happy to watch us on YouTube, you could click on that join button and become a member that way. Members get exclusive, members only content. They help to keep us afloat and independent from any corporate influence. And I'll always be grateful to our members for giving me a voice and giving me the freedom to say what I feel I need to say on this show. With that said, let's get to our first story. A new national survey by the Cato Institute finds that a pretty shocking percentage of young Americans are totally fine with the government of the United States. installing literal surveillance cameras in every household in an effort to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity. Look, before we get to the depressing numbers, it's worth

breathing in a sigh of relief as we take a broader view of how Americans in general feel about the government monitoring us. The exact same survey reveals that three and four Americans, luckily oppose installing government surveillance cameras in all homes. So you can take a look at that pie chart and it shows you that while 75% of Americans oppose such creepy big government measures, big brother measures, only 14% of survey takers are in favor of installing the cameras in people's homes. 10% apparently haven't thought too much about it and answered that they don't know. Okay. Now once the responses from the survey takers, were divided by age.

Things start to get worrying to say the least. Americans under the age of 30 stand out when it comes to 1984-style in-home government surveillance cameras. In fact, 3 and 10, 29% of Americans under the age of 30 favor the government installing surveillance cameras in every household in order to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity. Support declines with age, dropping to 20% among 30 to 44 year olds, and dropping considerably to 6% among those over the age of 45. There were other pretty shocking findings in this survey.

When the responses were broken down based on race, for instance, those who have been most concerned with systemic racism are actually the most receptive toward home surveillance by the very government they accuse of creating systems of oppression. It just doesn't really make much sense. Cato found that 25% of Hispanic and 33% of black respondents favor the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity. Only 11% of Asians and 9% of whites feel the same way. Now, I remember the outrage liberals expressed after discovering that the Bush administration was engaging in war,

wireless wiretapping on Americans. They were similarly outraged when Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the national security agency indiscriminately spying on Americans. But today's liberals are apparently different because among various ideological categories, they happen to be the most likely to support government surveillance in our homes. Take a look at this. 19% of liberals and 18% of moderates approve of government cameras in our homes. Meaning that combined, put them, put the numbers together, 37% of liberals and moderates would green light, the surveillance, that's insane.

Those who are very liberal or conservative are actually the least likely to support it at 9%. So look, even Ryan Grimm, who was a reporter over at The Intercept, sheds light on this phenomenon by sharing a personal anecdote. On Twitter, he wrote the following. Just anecdotally, when we at the intercept, do these kinds of stories on civil liberties that have been our bread and butter since the founding of the site, they just don't land or travel with readers like they used to. Look, I totally get that tons of people have grown accustomed to intentionally over sharing details about their personal lives on social media. But however misguided that behavior might be, it's behavior that people are opting into

and perhaps being watched and filmed endlessly by our neighbors, businesses, and local governments while we're in public spaces has lulled people into normalizing indiscriminate surveillance. Look, neither I nor the Cato Institute really know why there's a growing number of Americans who think that Big Brother watching us in our living rooms would somehow keep us safe. But look, not to get too harsh, if your brain has rotted so severely that you're under the impression that the government filming Americans in their own homes would somehow fight crime, maybe you should consider that there are plenty of crimes captured on camera in public spaces that maybe should be dealt with first.

Also consider the panic that set in among large swaths of the electorate in 2016, as it became clear that Trump won the presidential election. Would the pro-surveillance squad be down with Trump or Gollum spawn, Stephen Miller, buying in on what you're up to at home, that's the thing about Americans stupidly giving up their freedoms over promises of government protection. They tend to forget that their favored political party won't be in charge forever. And their role in concentrating power among government officials only helps to fast track us toward authoritarianism. And learning about history is important because it's the only way we can prevent repeating the same mistakes.

You don't even have to go back far to see how our federal government has abused its power, especially when it comes to surveillance. The Bush administration was able to increase its power while decimating the civil liberties that we were enjoying through the Patriot Act following the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Americans were terrified of another attack, and the Bush administration exploited that fear to pass the Patriot Act. But Bush went even further with warrantless wiretapping, meaning that the government could spy on Americans without probable cause and without obtaining a warrant from a judge. In fact, back then ABC News had reported on this. This is a piece from October 8th of 2008. And back then they wrote this.

Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of U.S. citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators, who worked at the giant national security agency center in Fort Gordon, Georgia. Now, the piece also highlighted the two individuals who were blowing the whistle on this. One of them you're about to hear about, Adrian Kine, a 31-year-old U.S. Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the end. NSA's back hall at Fort Gordon between November 2001 to 2003.

She said that U.S. military officers, American journalists, and American aid workers were routinely intercepted and collected on as they called their offices or homes in the United States. This was taking place as they were traveling abroad and calling into the United States to connect with their family members and their loved ones. Now, Kynne described the contents of these calls as personal, private. things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism. That is what she said. Oh, but by the way, it gets worse. Let's get to the other whistleblower. Another intercept operator, former Navy Arab linguist David Falk, says he and

others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of cuts that were available on each operator's computer. Hey, check this out, Falk says, he would be told. There's good phone sex. There's some pillow talk. Pull up this call. It's really funny. Go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk. And we would say, wow, this was crazy. And you know what, he's right. It was crazy. It was crazy that, The government was able to spy in on all Americans indiscriminately without even obtaining a warrant from a judge.

In other words, these people unsurprisingly abused their power and they did so under the false pretenses of keeping Americans safe. We have to look to history in order to learn valuable lessons from our past. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution makes clear that Americans should not be subjected to unreasonable searches. In fact, let's read from it right now. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but

upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. I mean, it's pretty clear, there needs to be probable cause. Bush administration threw that out the window during his time in office. And the Obama administration, of course, did nothing about it once he came into power. But let's put all of that aside, the politics of it aside. The real issue here is that when you give the government too much power, when you give away your civil liberties because you believe that the government's going to protect you,

it's going to backfire. Luckily, there are wonderful protections for Americans in our Constitution, and we have to protect our civil liberties. Trading our freedoms for shallow promises of safety didn't make sense in the past, and it definitely doesn't make sense today either. All right, we're going to take a brief break. It's a little bit early, but I want to get ready for the wonderful interview that we're about to have with a representative from UPS, a worker from UPS, I should say.

It's going to be a great conversation. There could be a massive historic strike this summer. So stick around. We'll share the details and that conversation with you when we return. Welcome back to TYT, special thanks to our new member, Rochelle Hubert. Definitely appreciate you all, becoming members, helping to support the show and the work that we're doing here. Thanks to you, we're able to have the conversations that we're about to have, and I hope you enjoy it. So let's get right to that.

This summer, some 350,000 UPS workers could walk off the job, making it the largest U.S. strike in the 21st century. The last time UPS workers walked off the job was in 1997, when Ron Kerry, president of the local 804 Teamsters, led 185,000 UPS Teamsters on strike. The strike would last a mere 15 days before the union was able to declare victory. While the country has not seen a strike of that size ever since, hundreds of thousands of UPS workers who are still represented by the local 804 Teamsters union are gearing. up to change that. As with most impending strikes, the heart of the dispute is the UPS contract. The chief executive of UPS, Carol Tomey, argues that the company and the union aren't so far apart in their negotiations for a new five-year contract. But considering that the workers are getting ready to walk off the job, one should be skeptical of her claims. According to local 804

president to the local 804 president, Vinnie Perrone, UPS made a killing, an absolute killing during the coronavirus pandemic, and the workers deserve a piece of the pie. In fact, the company made record profits in 2022. Annual revenue is up 11% on average for each year of the pandemic. The company delivers more than 20 million packages a day in the United States, making it the second largest ground courier after the United States Postal Service. An estimated 6% of the country's gross domestic product moves through UPS. UPS drivers, UPS workers do an incredibly important job. And considering the increase in profits that UPS has been able to enjoy, I definitely agree that they deserve a piece of that pie. But there are other issues at play

as well. Despite the company success, executives at UPS did something that seems counterintuitive, but happens to be a pretty common business practice in an economic climate that places profit maximization over all else. UPS has been laying off and displacing workers, cutting hours, and splitting shifts. One worker, accustomed to working a straight eight-hour day, says, says that he is now being told to work for four hours in the morning and then four hours at night, upending his ability to get a good night's sleep, much less do anything else. Other UPS locals report the same problem. Now contract negotiations began this past April and the national master contract is set

to expire on July 31st. What's really going on behind the scenes? How far apart are the employer and the union? What's at the heart of the dispute? Luckily here to discuss the dispute and the possibility of hundreds of thousands of UPS workers striking is Sean Orr, who is a UPS package car driver, or is also a member of Local 705 in Chicago and the co-chair of the Teamsters for a Democratic Union. Thank you so much for joining us, Sean. Thank you, Anna, for having me. Absolutely. It's our pleasure. I'm really excited to talk to you about this and learn more.

So look, something that really stands out to me is the tiered pay system involving so-called 22.4s, which was basically, it was implemented due to the 2018 contract, which was kind of forced upon you. We can get to that later. But tell me what the two-tiered pay system is really about. Yeah, for sure. So like you said, the 224 driver job classification came in in 2018. And that is essentially a flexible job position that UPS created. It is a package card driver. So like myself, the people who, you know, the boys in brown quote unquote to go out, make deliveries every day. But anyone who has been hired as a package card driver since that last contract was forced through in 2018 has come in as a 224 driver. And this means a couple of things.

One, it means that they make less pay than their fellow package car drivers who were hired before 2018. 224s cap out at about $9 less an hour. They do not have protection from forced overtime, which we call our 95 rights as package car drivers. And they can also be forced to work in the building doing split shifts, like what you were talking about before bringing me in. So you have people who one week are out delivering for 55, 60 hours in all different types of conditions, delivering packages every single day. And then that very next week, they might be told, hey, you know what? Volume is quote unquote light. We have to cut routes, quote unquote. They plead poverty. Well, guess we

Now you have to come in and work from 1 a.m. to 9 a.m. in the warehouse. Do you have kids? Well, guess what? You got to figure out someone else is going to take them in daycare. You got to figure out somebody else is going to be picking them up from school or picking them up from grandparents because you're going to be sleeping. You're going to be working. It totally upends people's lives. And the reason that UPS wanted this and that our union at the time agreed to it, unfortunately, is because the company wants more flexibility. They don't want to be guaranteeing package car drivers, their eight hour guarantee to go out and make deliveries. They don't like having that kind of strict, controlled workplace. That's what we like as workers, right?

We like guarantees. The company doesn't like guarantees. The company wants to be able to treat us like Amazon treats its employees, like Uber and Lyft treat their employees, telling them, hey, you're starting at this time, you're ending at this time. It's going to change next week. you do what we tell you to do and you have to accept it and you have to accept less pay than your co-workers. That's not right. I totally agree. I mean, those split shifts absolutely upend people's lives. I mean, they're not able to function as human beings. If they have to come in for four hours, then they're off for, I don't know, a few more hours, and then they come back for another

four hours. That's insane. But, you know, I think that this, employers do this kind of stuff intentionally, right? There's a reason why they prefer that two-tiered system, because what it ends up doing is it kind of soes discord and it kind of does away with the solidarity among workers that's really necessary to ensure that they're fighting together on behalf of workers. And I'm curious if you experienced a change in the climate at UPS among workers after that 2018 contract was signed. I would definitely say so. I think that. that UPS really sewed its own demise with this contract fight because, you know, they were expecting people to just accept less, right? Because that, you know, as a young worker,

our whole generation has been raised to expect less and accept less, right? We're not going to have the same standards that our parents had or that our coworkers have who have higher seniority or close to retirement. We have to accept the fact that conditions are changing. This economy is changing. You know what? You're lucky to that you actually just have a full-time job. Most people are juggling multiple part-time gigs, just this great buy. And that's not what happened, right? Young workers like myself, I started as a 22-4 driver.

Young workers like myself, we're not willing to accept that. We not only did we come into a situation where we had a militant union, a militant rank and file who fought back against that contract, it had it forced on us anyways. We voted that contract down in 2018, and our union leadership at the time decided to sign it anyways. That's why they're not our union leadership anymore. Okay, let's actually get to that right now, because I, that, for sure. That backstory is so incredible, and it's a story of awful leadership, but the rank and file actually fighting back against the awful leadership that led to that awful contract in 2018. So you guys were basically forced into signing that contract because of some arcane rule that James Hoffa decided to use.

James Hoffa was the head of the general union. And what went on? Tell us the backstory. Yeah. So we had James Hoffa Jr. was running our union. He'd been running since 1998. And he had negotiated concessionary contract after concessionary contract at UPS. This isn't a company that can plead poverty.

This isn't a company that's about to shutter its doors. This is a company that has year after year continue to grow and continue to dominate the most dominant sector of the U.S. economy. And yet he was signing off on concessionary contract after concessionary contract. And contracts kept on getting passed, but the no vote was getting bigger and bigger and bigger. every single contract because people were getting fed up and a rank and file movement was building led by TdU, which I'm a member of and others in the reform movement. And then in 2018, Hoffa put together a team of negotiators. It was led by Sean O'Brien and Fred Zuckerman, and they were promising we're going to do things

different, we're going to be militant, we're going to negotiate openly and transparently with the membership that we're not going to have a brown out of information. And what did Hoffa do after they said that? They were fired. They were removed from the negotiating committee. He put in one of his lackeys. It was a total blackout of information. And what came out of the other side was this agreement.

They had 22-4 drivers. They had part-timers still living in poverty. And they had a number of other unacceptable concessions. And we were fed up. And so in 2018, we voted that contract down. And this was a national movement that went against the leadership of our union. Our union was pushing hard for a yes vote. They said that they wanted to quote unquote keep UPS competitive.

They wanted to quote collaborate more with the employer. Well, the membership didn't want that. So we voted that contract down. But like he said, Hoffa used an arcane rule in the IBT, the Teamsters constitution. And he signed it anyways. And I remember that day so vividly, I was talking to my share. shop steward on the flown while we're out making deliveries. And we're talking about the fact that we couldn't believe that we just voted this

contract down. You know, 10 minutes after the contract vote came out, UPS went and gave a press conference where they said we respect the vote of the Teamsters membership. This was not our last best and final offer. We are ready to return to the table. And then as I was on the phone with my steward, we get the news. Hoffa has said, nope, we have this loophole in the contract. The membership vote doesn't matter.

This contract is hereby ratified. That's so crazy. He did that, it was crazy. I mean, he suffered the consequences. And I give the rank and file union members, the workers, a lot of credit for actually taking action against him for forcing that contract on you all. I understand that I'm asking you to speculate a little bit here, or maybe you know something that I'm not privy to.

What motivated Hafe's decision to force these contracts on the rank and file workers? I think that, you know, there's a little bit of speculation. I wish I knew Hoffa Jr.'s mind a little bit better. But I think that Hoffa and people like him are folks that genuinely believe that the role of the union is to work well with the companies and to work well with management and to work well with the owners because they believe that it's their job to keep the doors open to keep jobs coming in because they want to keep that membership dues money rolling in so that way they can enjoy their nice paychecks that they have. And he was pretty upfront about that. Hoffa would go out and say, I believe we need to collaborate more with the employers, with the major employers that keep this union afloat. And the membership, the people who worked for those employers, who were harassed every day by those employers, who had their wages stolen by those employers, who were threatened

with discipline, with discharge, who were forced to go out and work 14 hours a day in all types of conditions, those same members who didn't miss a single day of work during the COVID pandemic, right? We were forced to go out there and work. But one of Hoffa's last parting gifts during the during his time was when the pandemic broke out. Instead of fighting for hazard pay for UPS Teamsters, he just agreed to a 10-day paid leave that you could take one time if you got COVID once. Can't tell you how many of my coworkers have gotten COVID more times. than that and yet they have to sit at home without pay because Hoffa agreed to that.

And not a single Teamster at UPS got a single penny of hazard pay for the entire duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, not a single penny. That is- We didn't miss a day of work. Wow. And we had to keep working through that and we didn't get any of that extra bonus, any of that extra money that UPS was raking in off of our backs because we were the ones that went out there to be the essential heroes that everybody needed, right? We took pride in that, but we didn't get the benefits of that. The owners of UPS got the benefits of that.

And that's why in this contract campaign, we're here to take something back from them. I love it, I love it. And I love the new leadership and the militancy and the strategy to fight for better pay, better working conditions. You know, something that's been striking to me is the comparisons that I've noticed with non-unionized Amazon drivers. You know, we've done a lot of coverage about the terrible abusive conditions that they have to work under. But many of the UPS drivers themselves operate under similar conditions.

You do not have vehicles that are air conditioned. You have workloads that are overwhelming to say the least. And so let's talk a little bit about what the union is fighting for in these negotiations. I want to know exactly what you guys want to change, what you want to secure in this new contract. And also talk a little bit about where you are. I mean, the CEO of UPS claims that You guys aren't that far apart. I don't believe her. I'm curious where you guys are at with the with the negotiations as well. Yeah, for sure.

So in terms of our demands, we're not asking for anything, any moderate demands here. We're looking, we have high expectations and we expect those expectations to be met. We're looking for the two tier driver pay system to be fully eradicated day one of this new contract. We're looking for a significant raise for part time teamsters. Part timers make up over half of our membership. Most of the people who work in the warehouses, unloading trailers and loading package cars are part-time. In cities all over this country, they're at the minimum wage level.

The contractual rate right now is $15.50. That's unacceptable. These are the people that keep this company moving. They deserve a significant pay raise. I don't think we're going to accept much short of $25 in this contract for part-timers. We're looking for an end to subcontracting. We're looking for an end to gig workers doing UPS work because UPS wants Uber and Lyft drivers to go deliver UPS packages instead of Teamsters that have a full-time job.

We're looking for AC in all of our vehicles and in all of our warehouses. We have a whole laundry list of issues and we expect them to be taken seriously by this company. Now, UPS is saying that we are, that they're working well with us, that they're not far apart. And that's not true at all, that's not true at all. The reason why we have a strike authorization vote right now is because UPS is not taking our demand seriously. Our contract negotiating committee is ready to meet 24-7 around the clock. Our national negotiating committee, our local 705 negotiating committee, all of the

negotiating committees are ready to meet and we're very clear. We are not looking for a contract extension. This contract expires July 31st. August 1st, we either have a new contract that the membership has voted in favor of, a membership that has very high expectations, and it's very clear with what they want, or we're walking a picket line. It's that simple. UPS continues to stall, they continue to drag out negotiations, They continue to not meet with our negotiators or to answer the demands of the membership.

And so we're calling a strike authorization vote. They have to take this seriously. And I believe when they see the results of the strike authorization vote, they're going to know that either they sign off on this contract that the membership wants and we get to vote up in favor, or they're going to have to figure out what's going to happen with all those packages come August 1st. Because I tell you what, FedEx won't deliver them, Amazon won't deliver them, the post office won't deliver them. And they're going to have to answer to those customers and those in those companies about why their packages aren't moving anymore.

I love it. You know, final question for you, because I am curious if what the country experienced with the impending rail workers strike concerns you at all. Now, there are federal laws that allow for Congress to step in and squash rail workers attempting to strike. And unfortunately, the Biden administration acted, Congress acted, and they did exactly that. There aren't similar laws when it comes to UPS, but I wouldn't put it past federal lawmakers to intervene because we're not talking about a small deal. We're talking about, I mean, over 350,000 workers striking, and this would impact virtually every single company and business in the country because you guys are the ones.

who are moving their products, right? So I'm curious if there has been any talk about what to do, should the government try to intervene in some way? Well, we have talked about it a little bit as, you know, it's something that comes up all the time with my coworkers in our union. You know, we were all very disappointed with what Biden and the federal government did, forcing those rail workers back to work. Like you said, the laws are different.

Obviously, the Railway Labor Act covers them. We are not covered by the Railway Labor Act. We're covered by the NLRA, and so we have the right to strike. I believe that we expect things to happen very similarly if a strike happens to what happened in 1997, where Clinton was asked to step in and to try to intervene, try to hold negotiations, try to pull things together, try to call off the strike, pass something through Congress. You know, Clinton happened to not listen to that, and that's what helped us to win our strike in 1997.

If we have to strike on August 1st, if UPS forces us to strike, I hope that Biden and Congress do the same and stand with us. I think that like you said, this isn't, this isn't a small company. We make this country move. UPS is an incredibly significant company and I think that when our government talks about trying to do right by working people, trying to do right by the people, the quote unquote essential workers and the heroes that got people through the COVID-19 pandemic, for most people in this country, the face of that is a UPS driver, UPS drivers who are wearing masks, going

and delivering the vaccines to hospitals, delivering their essential goods to them, keeping them happy, keeping people healthy, keeping people safe, right? I think that there will be a reckoning if the government tries to intervene in our contract fight, not simply because us 350,000 Teamsters are not going to take this lying down. We're here to win, we're here to take. This is not a question of tradeoffs, it's not a question of a half deal. We're looking for a full deal from UPS. And I think that everybody in this country, the public, are going to stand behind us and getting

that to happen. Sean, inspiring words, solidarity with the Teamsters, all the power to you. And I hope that you will come back on the show and give us updates on everything that's happening, the negotiations, where you guys stand on everything. Seriously, we're all rooting for you. And I hope you guys get what you deserve. You guys really do an incredibly important job. So thank you again. Thanks, sister. Appreciate it. And solidarity. Absolutely. All right. Well, we're going to take a brief break when we come back, more news for you, including yet another story involving private insurance companies, their executives, and their unbelievable greed. Welcome back to TYT. I'm Anna Casparian, and let's get into a discussion on what corporate greed looks like, especially when it comes to executives in the healthcare industry.

Ordinary Americans are still struggling to make ends meet, and the problem has been further exacerbated by corporations using the inflation narrative to price gouge consumers, even when their costs haven't been rising. Now, greedflation seems to be paying off. for shareholders and corporate executives because the top 1% are sitting pretty. But look no further than the CEOs of the seven largest publicly traded insurance companies who made a combined $335 million just last year. So let's do that. Let's take a look at it. Let's take a look at their CEOs, their companies, and how much money they made. So Joseph Zubretzky, who's the CEO of Molina, he made a whopping $180 million, followed by

David Kordani, who's the head of Cigna, and raked in 37.1 million in a single year. Now, Karen Lynch, CEO of CVS, Aetna, made $30.9 million. Bruce Broussard, who's the CEO of Humana, was paid handsomely as well at $30.6 million. In fact, if you look at this list, the lowest paid insurance CEO is poor, poor Sarah London, CEO of Centine, who only made a measly $8.2 million. Now, how'd these fat cats make it so big? For starters, they spent billions of dollars on stock buybacks. The executives receive a massive portion of their compensation package through stocks.

And if they can game the system and inflate the value of shares, they get paid a lot more. That explains why this practice has been so widespread over the years. In fact, it should be banned, but of course it's not. Now, seven of the top health insurers spent a whopping, get a load of this, $141 billion on stock buybacks between 2007 and 2022. And to make matters worse, some of those companies get a huge portion of their money from us, the taxpayers. The three smallest of the seven big for-profit insurers, Centine, Humana, and Molina, now get 80 to 90 percent or more of their revenue from taxpayers through the Medicare Advantage

plans they operate and the state Medicaid programs they manage. Look, as we've shared with you all before, Medicare Advantage is privately run but publicly funded. A trait of privately run Medicare Advantage is basically overbilling the Medicare system and ripping off U.S. taxpayers. Awesome. Meanwhile, according to a report from last year, over 100 million Americans, or a whopping 41% of adults in the country have medical debt. In 2019 alone, before the pandemic, Americans owed a staggering $195 billion in medical bills. The very concept of medical debt is completely foreign to every other developed country, but our country is the exception because corruption is legal here. It's baked into our system. Health industry spending on federal lobbying

rose 70% from 2000 to 2020. The industry as a whole spent $713.6 million lobbying federal policymakers in 2020 alone compared to 358.2 million in 2000, which by the way was still way, was still way too high. Now, health industries include drug and device makers, providers like hospitals and physicians, insurers, and other payers and health care consultants. And these corporations, okay, these corporations are directly opposing the will of the American people who, by the way, obviously support universal health care. That's something that we've also talked about repeatedly on this show, because there have been many polls that have repeated. the same results. For instance, a 22 AP poll reveals that public satisfaction with the U.S.

health care system is remarkably low, with fewer than half of Americans saying it is generally handled well. Only 12% say it is handled extremely or very well. I mean, obviously it's not handled well. We spend more on health care than any other developed country with the worst results. About two-thirds of adults think it is the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, with adults ages 18 to 49, more likely than those over 50 to hold that view. The percentage of people who believe health care coverage is a government responsibility has risen in recent years, ticking up from 57% in 2019 and 62% in 2017. There are so many business practices that the federal government has greenlit.

Corporate stock buybacks is a perfect example. But in the very least, in the very least, could the federal government maybe reconsider green lighting, private insurers using our taxpayer money through the Medicare system to essentially enrich themselves further through corporate stock buybacks? I mean, I really appreciate just that one small change. as if the price gouging we experience in the healthcare industry, as if the denials of coverage that we experience every time a procedure is not authorized by the insurance company that we're covered by, as if all of that isn't enough. All of those behaviors meant to maximize profits, not enough for them.

They also have to rip off the Medicare system to essentially enrich themselves further. And while Republicans love to complain about how Medicare, it's just too costly, it might not be solvent in a few years, maybe they should consider the fact that private industry is overcharging the Medicare system through Medicare Advantage. Even Trump wanted to do something about that. Now, it didn't end up coming to fruition, because of course, even when it comes to the right wing, when their corporate donors speak, they certainly listen. But the idea that American taxpayer money is being used on corporate stock buybacks by private health care executives. The fact that that's happening right now as we speak, and it's just unabated,

unmitigated, no talk about it whatsoever from the federal government, including progressive lawmakers, that's infuriating. Something needs to be done about that. But of course, let's get distracted by all the cultural things that set us apart from each other. Let's fight each other. Let's do that. It's great. Ordinary Americans, ordinary workers, at each other's throats over their cultural differences. That's the perfect thing for us to focus on as we're all getting robbed. Love it. Just something to think about as you hear the reports in corporate media, as you see what the issues are according to our congressional lawmakers, what we should be focusing on, ask yourselves, are they trying to pit you against your fellow American so

you're not concerned or not paying attention to the robbery that's taking place? Because I think that's what's really going on here, but I don't know, I could be wrong. Anyway, let's move on to one of the headline stories today. I got to fit in one headline story in the first hour on Wednesday. So let's talk about Chris Licht. CNN's chairman and CEO, Chris Licht, is leaving the network. Licked took over the network a little over a year ago. David Zazlov, the chairman of CNN's parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery.

He just made the announcement at the network editorial meeting. For now, a leadership team will take Lick's place. Chris Lick's time as the CEO of CNN was a short one, as the cable network announced this morning that he's stepping down. Now, the decision was made following backlash from hosts and staffers at the network, the firing of Don Lemon and the lengthy profile and the Atlantic shedding light on some of Lick's terrible decisions. All of that kind of played a role here. Now, those decisions included hosting a town hall with Donald Trump as an olive branch to Republican voters, which ended up being perceived as anything but by the right because it

was moderated by Caitlin Collins, who didn't have a really great history with Donald Trump. Now, Warner Brothers Discovery CEO, David Zasloff, confirmed the news during the network's morning call saying, quote, I met with Chris and he will be leaving CNN. Zasloff apparently took responsibility for Lick's failure telling the 800 staffers who joined that morning call that for a number of reasons it didn't work out and that's on me. Now Zazloph also noted that he feels no rush to find a new CEO. And for now, Licked will be succeeded by a team of three people who are already executives at the network. And that includes Amy Entellis, who is the executive vice president for talent and content over at CNN. We also have Virginia Mosley, the executive vice president of editorial at CNN U.S. and Eric Sherling, executive vice president of U.S. programming.

I know nothing about any one of them, but they've been at CNN. And it doesn't seem like much as likely to change with this new move of having a three-person leadership team take charge. But nonetheless, back to Lict, who we covered earlier this week after the Atlantic published a stunning profile on him. After the piece was published, Lick told CNN staffers on Monday of this week that he vowed to earn their trust back. But apparently it was too late. CNN's own media reporter Oliver Darcy had reported that many people within the organization shared the consensus that Lict had lost the room. Even top talent, including Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, and Aaron Burnett reportedly expressed concerns about Lick's leadership, according to the Wall Street Journal.

But that's not surprising considering the way Lict would basically treat people within the network. For instance, that Atlantic piece profiling him detailed the way he would talk about Don Lemon. In fact, during a rehearsal for the new morning show that Don Lemon was supposed to host with Poppy Harlow and Caitlin Collins, Lick freaked out over what Lemon was wearing. And remember, this was during a rehearsal. He wasn't even on air. Let me read from the piece. Lemon had changed into a white jacket. The collar made her fur with a turtleneck underneath. What the F is he wearing? Licked, blurted out. A little while later, the younger producer spoke into Lemon's earpiece. Dawn, we're not too crazy about the jacket in here.

Lemon looked miffed, licked fought back a smirk, saying, why are you guys so mean to Don? Yeah, it's just, look, we have some inside sources that indicate that he did not have fur on the collar of that jacket. But nonetheless, neither here nor there. But weird catiness aside, Licks seemed to want to balance out the network's coverage, which had become ideologically slanted against Trump. He felt that CNN had been alienating half the country with its anti-Trump coverage. But he never had a strategy or a well thought out vision for how reporters would accurately cover stories about wrongdoing by the right without alienating their base. Even more concerning, and this is a larger issue with most corporate and legacy media, is that there is never any discussion shifting away from the culture wars for just a few minutes to focus on corporate greed or economic inequalities in America. CNN became synonymous with financially comfortable resistance liberals who were

expectedly outraged over the cable news channel pivoting toward friendlier Trump coverage. Not only did Lick to fail in attracting a Republican audience, he turned off their moderate liberal audience too, and it was reflected in the ratings. During Lick's leadership, the network saw poor ratings and lower profits. Last year, the network brought in $750 million in profits, which was down from 1.25 billion in 2021, according to the New York Times. Now, sit back and imagine if the news decided to cover stories that just naturally, organically speak to the majority of Americans. While on the surface, American voters appear to be super divided, and they are divided

when it comes to cultural issues, those divisions tend to center on the culture war. But when it comes to actual policy preferences that impact people's pocketbooks, there's a lot of similarities, okay? Whether it's money in politics, corporate greed, low taxes for the rich, the majority of Americans agree and they want to do something about it. I would venture to say they would want to see some coverage on those issues. But those are the very issues that CNN and the rest of the corporate media stay away from for obvious reasons. If the thinking over at CNN is as shallow as should we be nice to Trump or not, the network's doomed. In order to draw a broad audience, you have to address issues that have broad appeal.

CNN should try that out, but I doubt that they will. All right, we got to take a break. When I come back, I'll be joined by our very own John Iderola, really looking forward to it. He was napping on the couch in the office. We must wake him up and force him into the studio. And we will do just that and see you in just a few minutes. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more

by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.